IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20927 of 2010(M)
1. S.WILLIAMAS,ADVOCATE,T.C.14/415,
... Petitioner
2. SREENIVASA SHARMA, "PRANAVAM"NO.146,
3. V.C.MANJU, VIJAYA BHAVAN,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
For Petitioner :SMT.M.HEMALATHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.20927 of 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the respondents to acquire part of the properties held by them
and in their possession for acquisition of Phase IV Development
of Electronic Techno Park.
2. It is claimed in the Writ Petition that the petitioners
are owners and persons in possession of 7 Acres and 54 cents
and 520 Sq.inks of property in Sy.Nos.400/1, 400/1-1, 400/1-2,
400/1-3, 400/1-4, 400/4, 400/4-1, 400/4-2 and 400/4-3 of
Pallippuram Village. According to them, they have purchased it
as per Exhibits P1 to P3 sale deeds.
3. Presently, going by the averments in the Writ Petition,
the petitioners have already appeared before the Land Acquisition
Officer pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9(3) of the
Land Acquisition Act. It is pointed out that so far as the
acquisition proceedings are concerned, they are confined to 5
Acres 35 cents and 218 Sq.links, out of which compensation was
given only for 4 Acres 96.918 Sq.links The dispute raised by the
W.P.(C)No.20927/10 -2-
respondents appears to be that the remaining properties are
‘Purambokku’ lands and therefore the petitioners are not entitled
for the payment of compensation. This is disputed by the
petitioners by asserting their title and possession for number of
years.
4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions
submitted that an Award has been passed with respect to
2 Hectares and 01.10 cents which is the property to which they
have title and possession.
5. The main relief sought for in the Writ Petition is for a
direction to the respondent to give notice to the petitioners if
they intend to take possession of the remaining 2 Acres 19 cents
302 Sq.Links of property in Sy.Nos.400/1, 400/1-1, 400/1-2,
400/1-3, 400/1-4, 400/4, 400/4-1, 400/4-2 and 400/4-3 of
Pallippuram Village. The issue regarding the rights of the
petitioners, therefore, will have to be decided in an appropriate
civil suit, since they have asserted title and possession of the
property.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot compel
the respondents to acquire the properties by initiating
W.P.(C)No.20927/10 -3-
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, especially since the
respondents take the stand that the remaining property is
‘purambokku’ land.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted
that till the petitioners approach the Civil Court, the respondents
may be restrained from taking forcible possession of the
property. In view of the claim of possession of the petitioners,
any eviction could be sought only in terms of the Land
Conservancy Act and therefore if the petitioners are to be
divested of the disputed properties, it can be done only after
issuing appropriate notices under the Act and after hearing them
alone, the further proceedings will be finalised.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the civil
court, if they are so advised. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
dsn